Digest

1. Bun Tiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177, January 28, 2008
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
The facts of the case involve a dispute between spouses Benito Lo Bun Tiong and
Caroline Siok Ching Teng, and their creditor, Vicente Balboa. Caroline issued three
post-dated checks to Balboa in order to repay a debt of PHP 5,175,250. However,
Balboa filed a collection suit against the couple and also filed criminal complaints
against Caroline for violation of a certain law. The criminal complaints were later
dismissed, but Caroline was found civilly liable for the amounts covered by the post-
dated checks. The couple appealed the dismissal of their counterclaim and sought
partial reconsideration of the indictment against Caroline. They also accused Balboa
of forum shopping, for seeking both a criminal conviction and a civil judgment against
them. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the couple, agreeing that there were
elements of forum shopping present.
Issue:
Whether or not the Balboa's act of filing civil and criminal cases constitute forum-
shopping.
Held:
The court decision in this case is that the petitioners, spouses Benito Lo Bun Tiong
and Caroline Siok Ching Teng, were successful in their accusation of forum shopping
against respondent Vicente Balboa. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating
that there were elements of forum shopping present. Therefore, the court affirmed the
decision of the Court of Appeals and denied the petitioners' request to reconsider the
decision.
There is an issue about ex-delicto in this case. The court discusses the purpose of the
criminal action, which is to punish the offender and maintain social order, and the
purpose of the civil action, which is for the restitution or indemnification of the offended
party. The court also mentions that the relief sought in the civil aspect of the case,
which involves the recovery of the amount covered by the post-dated checks, is the
same as that sought in the criminal case [2]. However, the court clarifies that since the
civil action was filed prior to the criminal action, it may proceed independently, and
there is no issue of forum shopping
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated November
20, 2002 and Resolution dated April 21, 2003 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.

2. Yakult Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91856, 5 October 1990
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
David Camaso and Larry Salvado were involved in a legal dispute in Manila. Camaso,
a five-year-old boy, was sideswiped by a Yamaha motorcycle owned by Yakult
Philippines, driven by Salvado. Salvado was charged with reckless imprudence,
resulting in slight physical injuries. Camaso filed a complaint for damages against
Yakult Philippines and Salvado, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. The
petitioners argued that the civil action could not be filed independently of the criminal
action, as it was not a separate civil action under the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Issue:
Whether or not a civil action instituted after the criminal action was filed, before
presentation of evidence by the prosecution, would prosper even if there was no
reservation to file a separate civil action.
Held:
In a decision dated November 3, 1989, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.
Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous reservation in
the criminal case, nevertheless since it was instituted before the prosecution
presented evidence in the criminal action, and the judge handling the criminal case
was informed thereof, then the actual filing of the civil action is even far better than a
compliance with the requirement of an express reservation that should be made by
the offended party before the prosecution presents its evidence.
The purpose of this rule requiring reservation is to prevent the offended party from
recovering damages twice for the same act or omission.
Thus, the Court finds and so holds that the trial court had jurisdiction over the separate
civil action brought before it.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The questioned decision of the Court of
Appeals dated November 3, 1989 and its resolution dated January 30, 1990 are
hereby AFFIRMED.

3. Maniago vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104392, 20 February 1996
Case Digest
Facts of the case:
In a vehicular accident on Loakan Road in Baguio City, Ruben Maniago's shuttle bus,
driven by Herminio Andaya, was involved in a criminal case for reckless imprudence.
The driver was also involved in a civil case for damages. Maniago sought to suspend
the civil case, arguing that a criminal case was already pending. The trial court denied
this motion, stating that the civil action could proceed independently. However, the CA
affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that no reservation was made in the criminal
case.
Issue:
Whether or not the civil action may proceed independently of the criminal action when
no reservation of right to bring it separately was made.
Held:
No. The Court have reached the conclusion that the right to bring an action for
damages under the Civil Code must be reserved as required by Rule III, §1, otherwise
it should be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is REVERSED and the complaint against
petitioner is DISMISSED.

4. Casupanan vs. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, 26 August 2002
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
Respondent filed a criminal action against petitioners for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Damage to Property. While the criminal case is pending, the Petitioners
filed with the MCTC a civil case for Quasi-delict. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss
the said civil action against him on the ground of forum-shopping considering the
pendency of the criminal case. The MCTC granted the motion. Petitioners filed a
motion for reconsideration which was denied by the MCTC. They appeal to the RTC,
with was also denied. Hence this case.
Issue:
Whether an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly
file, simultaneously and independently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict against
34the private complainant in the criminal case.
Held:
Yes. Section 1 of the present Rule 111 allows for independent civil action in Articles
32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code to be filed separately from the criminal action.
The commencement of the criminal action does not suspend the prosecution of the
civil action, while Section 2 of the present Rule 111 only applies to civil action arising
from the crime if it is reserved or filed before the criminal action commencement.
The offended party can file two separate civil cases for the same act or omission, one
a criminal action to recover civil liability ex-delicto and the other a civil case for quasi-
delict, without violating the rule on non-forum shopping. The civil action for quasi-delict
can proceed simultaneously and independently, but the offended party cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. In most cases, the
offended party will not need to file a second civil action, and in some cases, the
accused may be insolvent, necessitating another case against their employer or
guardians.

5. Cabaero vs. Cantos, G.R. No. 102942, 18 April 1997
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
The case involves the accused-petitioners who were charged with estafa for allegedly
defrauding the private complainant of a certain amount of money. The accused filed
an Answer with Counterclaims, seeking the dismissal of the information and the civil
action instituted in the criminal case and requesting the private complainant to pay
moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The trial court
ordered the expunction of the answer with counterclaim from the records and denied
the accused's motion for reconsideration.
Issue:
The main issue regarding independent civil action is whether the accused can file a
counterclaim for damages in the same criminal action.
Held:
The ruling of the Supreme Court in this case was that the accused could file a
counterclaim for damages against the private complainant in the same criminal action
without paying the prescribed docket fees. The court held that a compulsory
counterclaim does not require docket fees as long as it is filed within the proper period.
Furthermore, the court cited a previous case where the counterclaim was considered
compulsory in nature and, therefore, should be filed in the criminal case upon the
implied institution of the civil action.

6. Neplum vs. Orbeso, G.R. No. 141986, 11 July 2002
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
The factual antecedents, as narrated by petitioner in its Memorandum, are as
follows:
"2.01 On 29 October 1999, the trial court promulgated its judgment (the ‘Judgment’)
in Criminal Case No. 96-246 acquitting the accused of the crime of estafa on the
ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The accused and her counsel as well as the public and private
prosecutors were present during such promulgation.
‘2.01.1 The private prosecutor represented the interests of the petitioner who was
the private offended party in Criminal Case No. 96-246.’
"2.02 On 12 November 1999, the petitioner, through the private prosecutor, received
its copy of the Judgment.
"2.03 On 29 November 1999, petitioner filed its 25 November 1999 Motion for
Reconsideration (Civil Aspect) of the Judgment.
‘2.03.1 Considering that 27 November 1999 was a Saturday, petitioner filed its
Motion for Reconsideration on 29 November 1999, a Monday.’
"2.04 On 28 January 2000, a Friday, petitioner received its copy of the 24 January
2000 Order of the Trial Court denying for lack of merit petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration.
"2.05 On 31 January 2000, a Monday, petitioner filed its 28 January 2000 Notice of
Appeal from the Judgment. On the same day, petitioner filed by registered mail its 28
January 2000 Amended Notice of Appeal.
"2.06 On 17 February 2000, the Trial Court issued its Challenged Order, which
petitioner received through the private prosecutor on 22 February 2000, denying due
course to petitioner’s Notice of Appeal and Amended Notice of Appeal x x x."
Issue:
"Whether the period within which a private offended party may appeal from, or move
for a reconsideration of, or otherwise challenge, the civil aspect of a judgment in a
criminal action should be reckoned from the date of promulgation or from the date of
such party’s actual receipt of a copy of such judgment considering that any party
appealing or challenging such judgment would necessarily need a copy thereof, which
is in writing and which clearly express the factual and legal bases thereof to be able
to file an intelligent appeal or other challenge."

7. Held:
The RTC denied the petitioner's Notice of Appeal and Amended Notice due to filing
beyond the reglementary period, arguing the appeal had become final due to the 15-
day period.
No Need to Reserve- Independent Civil Action
At the outset, we must explain that the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure deleted
the requirement of reserving independent civil actions and allowed these to proceed
separately from criminal ones. Thus, the civil actions referred to in Articles 32, 33, 34
and 2176 of the Civil Code shall remain "separate, distinct and independent" of any
criminal prosecution based on the same act. Here are some direct consequences of
such revision and omission:
1. The right to bring the foregoing actions based on the Civil Code need not be
reserved in the criminal prosecution, since they are not deemed included therein.
2. The institution or waiver of the right to file a separate civil action arising from the
crime charged does not extinguish the right to bring such action.
3. The only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover more than once for
the same act or omission.
Thus, Civil action is a legal process where civil liability is instituted in criminal
prosecution, arising from the crime or delict. This liability remains in the criminal
prosecution, and the offended party can intervene to protect their civil interest. The
offended party can appeal a judgment in a criminal case acquitting the accused on
reasonable doubt.

8. San Ildefonso Lines, Inc. vs. Javier, G.R. No. 119771, 24 April 1998
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
In 1991, a Toyota Lite Ace Van was involved in a vehicular mishap in Pasig, Metro
Manila, where owner Annie U. Jao and a passenger bus of San Ildefonso Lines, Inc.
(SILI) collided. A criminal case was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig,
charging the bus driver, Eduardo Javier, with reckless imprudence resulting in property
damage and multiple physical injuries. In 1992, Pioneer Insurance and Surety
Corporation (PISC), the insurer of the van, filed a case for damages against SILI with
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, seeking to recover the sums paid under a motor
vehicle insurance policy and other damages. The petitioners filed a Manifestation and
Motion to Suspend Civil Proceedings, but the Manila Regional Trial Court denied this.
The matter was later elevated to the Court of Appeals, where a decision adversely
impacted the petitioners. The court upheld the Manila Regional Trial Court Order,
stating that a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, regardless
of whether they are criminally prosecuted or acquitted.
Issue:
If a criminal case was filed, can an independent civil action based on quasi-delict under
Article 2176 of the Civil Code be filed if no reservation was made in the said criminal
case?
Can a subrogee of an offended party maintain an independent civil action during the
pendency of a criminal action when no reservation of the right to file an independent
civil action was made in the criminal action and despite the fact that the private
complainant is... actively participating through a private prosecutor in the
aforementioned criminal case?
Held:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals
dated February 24, 1995 and the Resolution dated April 3, 1995 denying the motion
for reconsideration thereof are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
"MANIFESTATION AND MOTION TO SUSPEND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS" filed by
petitioners is GRANTED.

9. Yap vs. Paras, G.R. No. 101236, 30 January 1992
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
The main topic of the case is a legal dispute between siblings over an inherited
property. The petitioner, Juliana P. Yap, claims that her brother, Martin Paras, sold his
share of the property to her in 1971. However, nineteen years later, Paras sold the
same property to another person. When Yap learned of this second sale, she filed a
complaint against Paras for estafa (deception) and sought nullification of the sale. The
trial judge, Alfredo D. Barcelona Sr., dismissed the criminal case, stating that it raised
a prejudicial question that needed to be resolved in a civil court. Yap disagreed,
arguing that the criminal case should have been suspended, not dismissed. She
challenged the judge's decision in the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The Supreme
Court found that Judge Barcelona had committed grave abuse of discretion by
dismissing the criminal case without following the proper procedures. The Court
emphasized that the resolution of the prejudicial question should determine the guilt
or innocence of the accused in the criminal action. The Court reversed the judge's
decision and ordered the reinstatement of the criminal case for further proceedings
under a different judge.
Issue:
The issue regarding prejudicial question in this case is whether the criminal action
should have been dismissed or suspended when there is a prejudicial question in a
civil case. The petitioner, Juliana P. Yap, argues that the criminal action should have
been suspended, not dismissed. She contends that the judge's dismissal of the
criminal case without following the proper procedures was a grave abuse of discretion.
Held:
Therefore, the ruling of the court was to reverse the judge's decision and reinstate the
criminal case for further proceedings under a different judge. Judge Barcelona was
reprimanded for his conduct in the case.

10. Alano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111244, 15 December 1997
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
Arturo Alano, a petitioner in Pasig, filed a petition for review of the Court of Appeals'
decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 28150, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court of
Manila's order. The criminal case, "People of the Philippines vs. Arturo Alano,"
alleges that Alano defrauded Roberto S. Carlos of P30,000 in Philippine currency.
Alano moved for the suspension of the criminal case, citing a prejudicial question
pending resolution in another case in Pasig, "Roberto Carlos and Trinidad M. Carlos
v. Arturo Alano, et al." The civil case was filed in 1985, five years before the criminal
case for estafa was instituted. The trial court denied Alano's motion and a
subsequent motion for reconsideration. Alano then filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition before the Court of Appeals, seeking the nullification of the assailed
order. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Issue:
Whether the pendency of Civil Case No. 55103, is a prejudicial question justifying the
suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90-84933 filed against the
petitioner.
Held:
In a criminal case, a pre-trial order stipulates facts, binding the parties involved. This
waiver of the right to present additional evidence is a constitutional right, but can be
waived expressly or impliedly. The pre-trial suspension due to a prejudicial question
is procedural and subject to a waiver by the accused's prior acts. The waiver of the
defense of forgery in the civil case is not contrary to law, public order, public policy,
morals, or good customs. The pre-trial order was signed by the petitioner himself,
allowing no proof to be offered.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals
dated July 26, 1993 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

11. Capili vs. People, G.R. No. 183805, 03 July 2013
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
James Capili was charged with the crime of bigamy before the RTC of Pasig City.
James was previously married to Karla Medina-Capili, and without said marriage being
legally dissolved, contracted a second marriage with Shirley Tismo.
James thereafter filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings alleging that: (1) there is a
pending civil case for declaration of nullity of the second marriage before the RTC of
Antipolo City filed by Karla Y. Medina-Capili; (2) in the event that the marriage is
declared null and void, it would exculpate him from the charge of bigamy;; and (3) the
pendency of the civil case for the declaration of nullity of the second marriage serves
as a prejudicial question.
Meanwhile, the RTC of Antipolo declared the voidness or invalidity of the second
marriage on the ground that the subsequent marriage contracted by the husband
during the lifetime of the legal wife is void from the beginning.
James then filed a Motion to Dismiss the criminal case of bigamy, which the RTC
granted. Private respondent filed an appeal in the CA, which reversed the RTC’s
decision. James then filed a MR, but the same was denied. Thus, this petition for
review on certiorari.
Issue:
The central question at hand is whether the subsequent declaration of nullity of the
second marriage can serve as a ground for dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy.
Held:
NO. It is clear that the petitioner and private respondent entered into a second
marriage on December 8, 1999, while the petitioner’s first marriage to Karla Y. Medina-
Capili was still valid, having been contracted on September 3, 1999. The RTC of
Antipolo City itself declared the second marriage to be bigamous in nature. Therefore,
the subsequent judicial declaration of the second marriage’s bigamous nature does
not prevent the prosecution of the petitioner for the crime of bigamy.

12. Jose vs. Suarez, G.R. No. 176795, 30 June 2008
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
The case involves a dispute between two sets of individuals in the Philippines.
Spouses Carolina and Reynaldo Jose lent money to spouses Laureano and Purita
Suarez with a daily interest rate starting from 1-2% and later increased to 5%. The
petitioners then gave the borrowed money to Purita, who would deposit the amount
into her account and issue checks to pay the interest to the lenders. The Suarez couple
filed a complaint with the trial court seeking the nullity of interest because it was
iniquitous and contrary to morals. They also wanted the declaration of interest
payments for recovery and a restraining order against petitioners from filing criminal
cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 or the B.P. Blg. 22. Later on, the
petitioners filed criminal cases against Purita for the violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The
Suarez couple filed a motion to suspend the criminal proceedings on the grounds of a
prejudicial question, which was denied. The Suarez couple asked the Regional Trial
Court for a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the criminal proceedings. Petitioners
challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC to issue a preliminary injunction based on a
prejudicial question. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the
RTC's ruling. However, the Supreme Court found no prejudicial question that
necessitates the suspension of the MTCC's proceedings.
Issue:
The issue on the prejudicial question in this case is whether the daily interest rate of
5% is void, and consequently, whether the checks issued by the respondents to cover
said interest are also void for being against morals. The respondents argued that if the
interest rate is deemed void, then the cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 would no
longer prosper.
Held:
The decision of the Supreme Court in this case is to grant the petition and set aside
the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court also lifted and set aside the
preliminary injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court and ordered the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities to proceed with the arraignment and trial in the criminal cases for
violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.

13. De Lima vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 209330, 11 January 2016
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
Dr. Gerardo Ortega, a veterinarian and anchor of several shows in Palawan, was shot
dead by Marlon Recamata. Recamato also implicated Rodolfo "Bumar" O. Edrad,
Dennis C. Arans, and Armando "Salbakotah" R. Noel, Jr. Edrad, alleging that former
Palawan Governor Mario Joel T. Reyes ordered the killing of Dr. Ortega. In 2011,
Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima created a special panel of prosecutors to conduct
a preliminary investigation. The First Panel concluded its investigation and dismissed
the complaint.
On June 28, 2011, Dr. Patricia Gloria Inocencio-Ortega, Dr. Ortega's wife, filed a
Motion to Re-Open Preliminary Investigation, which sought the admission of mobile
phone communications between former Gov. Reyes and Edrad but was denied by the
First Panel. In the interest of service and due process, the Secretary of Justice created
a new panel of investigators to conduct a reinvestigation of the case. The Second
Panel issued a Resolution finding probable cause and recommending the filing of
information on all accused.
Reyes filed before the Court for Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for
Writ of Preliminary Injuction and/or Temporary Restraining Order impleading the RTC
of Palawan. The respondent argued that the Secretary of Justice had no authority to
order motu propio the reinvestigation of the case since Dr. Inocencio-Ortega was able
to submit her alleged new evidence to the First Panel when she filed her Motion for
Partial Reconsideration.
The respondent argued that the Secretary of Justice's discretion to create a new panel
of prosecutors was not "unbridled" since the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal requires
compelling circumstances for her to designate another prosecutor to conduct the
reinvestigation.
Issue:
Whether the creation of the Second Panel was an executive function
Whether the Secretary of Justice is authorized to create motu propio another panel
of prosecutor in order to conduct a reinvestigation of the case
Whether the Petition for Certiorari has already been rendered moot by the filing of
the information in court

14. Held:
The Secretary of Justice issued Department Order No. 710 due to concerns that the
First Panel's refusal to admit additional evidence may cause a probable miscarriage
of justice. The Second Panel was created to ensure all evidence, including the First
Panel's refusal, was investigated, avoiding arbitrary actions. The courts do not
interfere with the prosecutor's conduct of a preliminary investigation, as the
prosecutor's determination of probable cause is solely within their discretion. A
preliminary investigation is "merely inquisitorial" and serves a two-fold purpose: to
protect the innocent against wrongful prosecutions and to spare the state from using
its funds and resources in useless prosecutions.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED for being moot. Branch 52 of the Regional
Trial Court of Palawan is DIRECTED to proceed with prosecution of Criminal Case
No. 26839.

15. Ocampo vs. Abando, G.R. No. 176830, 11 February 2014
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
Petitioners were charged with the murder of the victims found in a mass graveyard
and with the crime of rebellion as leaders of the CPP/NPA/NPDF. They claimed
that copies of the subpoena, the complaint and other supporting documents never
reached them so that they were denied due process during the preliminary
investigation, but the Court held that efforts were made by sending these to their
addresses. Also, the judge complied with the Constitutional requirements in his
determination of probable cause for the issuance of the warrants of arrest.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners’ right to due process was violated during the preliminary
investigation
Held:
No. Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, allows Prosecutor Vivero to resolve
the complaint based on the evidence before him if a respondent could not be
subpoenaed. As long as efforts to reach a respondent were made, and he was given
an opportunity to present countervailing evidence, the preliminary investigation
remains valid. It was only because a majority of them could no longer be found at their
last known addresses that they were not served copies. The rule was meant to foil
underhanded attempts of a respondent to delay the prosecution of offenses. A
preliminary investigation is "not a casual affair." It is conducted to protect the innocent
from the embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial. In the context of a
preliminary investigation, the right to due process of law entails the opportunity to be
heard. It serves to accord an opportunity for the presentation of the respondent’s side
with regard to the accusation. Afterwards, the investigating officer shall decide whether
the allegations and defenses lead to a reasonable belief that a crime has been
committed, and that it was the respondent who committed it. Otherwise, the
investigating officer is bound to dismiss the complaint.

16. Leviste vs. Alameda, G.R. No. 182677, 3 August 2010
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner was charged with homicide for the death of Rafael de las Alas in Makati
City on January 12, 2007. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a commitment order
against the petitioner, who was placed under police custody. After posting a ₱40,000
cash bond, he was released from detention and his arraignment was set for January
24, 2007. The private complainants-heirs of De las Alas filed an Urgent Omnibus
Motion, asking for the deferment of proceedings to allow the public prosecutor to re-
examine the evidence on record or conduct a reinvestigation to determine the proper
offense. The RTC issued two orders: (1) deferring petitioner's arraignment and
allowing the prosecution to conduct a reinvestigation to determine the proper offense
and submit a recommendation within 30 days from its inception; and (2) denying
reconsideration of the first order. The petitioner assailed these orders via certiorari and
prohibition before the Court of Appeals. The petitioner then filed a motion to defer from
acting on the prosecution's recommendation until the CA resolves the injuction he is
seeking or grants him time to comment on the prosecutor's recommendation. The RTC
issued orders to admit the Amended Information for murder and issued a warrant of
arrest for the petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not the private complainants can cause the reinvestigation when the
information was already filed before the RTC.
Held:
The accused is precluded after arraignment from questioning the illegal arrest or the
lack of or irregular preliminary investigation applies "only if he voluntarily enters his
plea and participates during trial, without previously invoking his objections thereto."
There must be clear and convincing proof that petitioner had an actual intention to
relinquish his right to question the existence of probable cause. When the only proof
of intention rests on what a party... does, his act should be so manifestly consistent
with, and indicative of, an intent to voluntarily and unequivocally relinquish the
particular right that no other explanation of his conduct is possible.
A preliminary investigation is required before the filing of a complaint or information for
an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and
one day without regard to fine. As an exception, the rules provide that there is no need
for a preliminary investigation in cases of a lawful arrest without a warrant involving
such type of offense, so long as an inquest, where available, has been conducted.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA--‐G.R. SP No. 97761 are AFFIRMED.

17. Borlongan, Jr. vs. Pena, G.R. No. 143591, 23 November 2007
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
Respondent Magdaleno Peña instituted a civil case for recovery of agent’s
compensation against Urban Bank and the petitioners, for when he allegedly entered
into an agreement with the petitioners wherein Peña undertook to perform acts
necessary to prevent any intruders or squatters from unlawfully occupying Urban
Bank’s property. Petitioners presented documents (letters and memorandums) in an
attempt to show that the respondent (Peña) was appointed as agent by ISCI (former
owner of the banks property) and not by Urban Bank or by the petitioners. While, on
the other hand, Peña claimed that said documents were falsified because the alleged
signatories did not actually affix their signatures, and the signatories were neither
stockholders nor officers and employees of ISCI. The City Prosecutor rules in favor of
Peña and concluded that the petitioners were guilty of crime of introducing falsified
documents, subsequently, information were filed with the MTCC of Bago City, Negros,
Occidental. The Judge subsequently issued warrants for the arrest of the petitioners.
Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to Recall Warrants of Arrest and insisted that they
were denied due process because they were not afforded the right to submit their
counter-affidavits. And avers that since they were not afforded to submit their counter-
affidavit, the trial judge merely relied on the complaint-affidavit and attachments of the
respondent in issuing the warrants of arrest, in contravention of the Rules. Petitioners
further prayed that the information be quashed for lack of probable cause.
Issue:
Whether or not Petitioners are entitled to submit counter-affidavit before determining
if warrant of arrest shall be issued against them.
Held:
No. The Constitution allows the prosecutor to determine the existence of probable
cause based on affidavits and supporting documents submitted by the complainant.
The prosecutor can dismiss the complaint or file information if probable cause is found,
without requiring the submission of counter affidavits. The judge is responsible for
personally evaluating the report and supporting documents, and if not satisfied, may
disregard the prosecutor's report and require supporting affidavits. There is no
provision in the Constitution mandating the submission of counter affidavits before
determining probable cause.

18. Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212761-62, July 31, 2018
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
Petitioners are charged as co-conspirators for their respective participation in the
illegal pillaging of public funds sourced from the Priority Development Assistance Fund
(PDAF) of Estrada for the years 2004 to 2012. The charges are contained in two (2)
complaints, namely: (1) a Complaint for Plunder filed by the National Bureau of
Investigation and Atty. Levito D. Baligod (NBI Complaint) on 16 September 2013,
docketed as OMB-C-C-13-0313; and (2) a Complaint for Plunder and violation of
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 filed by the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman (FIO
Complaint) on 18 November 2013, docketed as OMB-C-C-13-0397, both before the
Ombudsman.
Benhur Luy, along with other JLN employees, allegedly initiated the PDAF scheme with
Estrada, discussing projects, cost, and legislator commission. Luy prepared a "Listing"
for Napoles, which was then submitted to the legislator, who endorsed the request for
the release of the SARO.
Napoles is awaiting the release of the SARO from the DBM, with Luy and other Napoles
employees working to expedite the process.
Napoles selected a JLN-controlled NGO to implement a project. The DBM released the
Notice of Cash Allocation, and the IA expedited the disbursement of PDAF in exchange
for a 10% share in the project cost. Napoles and her employees fabricated fictitious
documents to make it appear the projects were implemented.
The COA Report highlighted violations of PDAF laws, non-compliance with
regulations, and irregularities in livelihood project implementation by NGOs, suppliers,
and beneficiaries.
Napoles failed to submit her separate Counter-Affidavits to the NBI and FIO
Complaints, despite the Ombudsman's orders for the petitioners and their co-
respondents.
Estrada, a former NGO employee, denied receiving any funds from Napoles or any
NGO associated with her, nor directing any staff to engage in unlawful PDAF
allocations transactions.
Napoles and Estrada faced charges for violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019, despite
claiming no intentional wrongdoing in implementing PDAF projects. The NBI and FIO
Complaints found probable cause for the charges, citing Estrada's endorsement of
accredited NGOs.
Napoles and Estrada conspired with DBM personnel and IA heads to divert PDAF
funds from intended recipients to JLN-controlled NGOs, resulting in ill-gotten wealth
and violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019.

19. The motions for reconsideration were denied in the Joint Order issued by the
Ombudsman on 4 June 2014.
Napoles and Estrada filed petitions for certiorari assailing the Joint Resolution and
Joint Order of the Ombudsman, following the denial of petitioners' motions for
reconsideration.
Estrada filed a Supplement to the Petition for Certiorari in 2015 and 2018 claiming his
indictment is political persecution and violates his constitutional right to equal
protection of the laws.
Issue:
Whether or not the Ombudsman committed any grave abuse of discretion in rendering
the assailed Resolution and Order ultimately finding probable cause against Estrada,
De Asis, and Napoles for the charges against them.
Held:
There is no evidence that the Ombudsman acted in capricious and whimsical exercise
of judgment amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. No manifest error or grave
abuse of discretion or bad faith can be imputed to the public prosecutor, or the
Ombudsman in this case. In fine, the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause prevails
over petitioners' bare allegations of grave abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the Court
must defer to the exercise of discretion of the Ombudsman, in the absence of actual
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petitions for lack of merit and AFFIRM the finding
of probable cause against all the petitioners.

20. Beltran vs. People, G.R. Nos. 172070-72, June 1, 2007
Case Digest
Facts of the Case:
Beltran Petition:
During the National Emergency declared by PGMA on February 24, 2006, Crispin
Beltran was arrested in Camp Crame without a warrant. The arrest was based on a
speech Beltran gave during a rally in Quezon City, which was deemed probable cause
by the prosecutor. The incident highlights the ongoing tensions in the Philippines.
BASIS: joint affidavit of Beltran’s arresting officers who claimed to have been present
at the rally.
Beltran, a key figure in the Arroyo government, was implicated in a second inquest by
DOJ state prosecutors. The DOJ found probable cause for Beltran's involvement in an
alleged plot to overthrow the Arroyo government, but Beltran argues that this inquest
was void and based on CIDG's investigation.
Ladlad and Maza petitions:
Ladlad, Maza, et al were called for a preliminary investigation for the crime of rebellion.
Basis of the preliminary investigation: results of the CIDG investigation, culled from
the Beltran inquest.
During the preliminary investigation, CIDG presented Jaime Fuentes, a masked man,
as an eyewitness against petitioners. Velasco, the prosecutor, distributed Fuentes'
affidavit to media members. Ladlad argued for Velasco's inhibition due to lack of
impartiality and independence, considering the political context, media statements,
and the preliminary investigation's conduct.
Furthermore, they contend that the preliminary investigation was tainted with
irregularities as not pursuant to Rule 112 Sec 3.
Issue:
Whether or not the inquest for rebellion against Beltran was valid?
Whether or not there is probable cause to indict Beltran for rebellion?
Whether or not the preliminary investigation conducted against Ladlad and Maza
were tainted with irregularity?
Held:
No. Beltran's inquest proceeding against him for Rebellion is void due to the inquest
prosecutor's overstepping authority. The arresting officers, who did not witness the
crime of Rebellion, alleged that they saw and heard Beltran make an allegedly

21. seditious speech on 24 February 2006. The inquest prosecutor's authority was
overstepped, rendering the second inquest void.
No. Beltran, a member of the CPP, was indicted for rebellion under Article 134 of the
Revised Penal Code. The CIDG letters and affidavits provided by the panel of
prosecutors were deemed insufficient to show probable cause to indict him. Beltran
argues that mere membership in the CPP does not constitute rebellion, as he does
not acknowledge it.
Yes. Prosecutors at CIDG, PNP, failed to comply with Section 3a of Rule 112, which
requires complaints to be accompanied by affidavits and sworn to by a prosecutor or
government official, or a notary public, despite some notarized letters being accepted.
Prosecutors, under Section 3(b) of Rule 112, must determine if there are grounds to
continue an investigation after receiving a complaint. If no, they dismiss the case or
issue subpoenas.
Prosecutors allowed the CIDG to present a masked Fuentes during an investigation,
which was distributed to media members. This allowed prosecutors to trivialize the
investigation and lend credence to petitioners' claim that the entire proceeding was a
sham, resulting in a court ruling of partiality.